Last post on Feb 13, 2011 at 8:08 AM
You are in the Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego
What is this discussion about?
Ford Five Hundred, Mercury Montego, Sedan
#1926 of 3623 Re: I'm back early, 500 & 300, investing vs spending [fsmmcsi]
Dec 01, 2004 (9:26 pm)
Having driven the 300C a few times, and the 500/Montego many times, the pluses don't overide the negatives, especially price wise. I was hoping that the Montego would be my car, but considering what the Montego doesn't offer, and the 300C does, it's the way to go. The 300 is a sweet machine that really deserves the Car of the Year Award from Motor Trend. I still can't understand Ford's way of thinking the past few years. While everyone else is giving more in their cars, Ford has been taking away. Back in 2000, when I ordered my 2000 Sable and found out that there was no four wheel disc brakes, no power passenger seat, no power lumbar, and no power antenna, to name a few things. And that continues right up to the 2005 model of the Sable. These were all things I had in my past Ford/Mercury vehicles and really wanted in my new car. Even though Ford offers AWD, 2 new transmissions, and Command seating as new steps in the right direction, they shoot themselves in the foot by leaving off struts for the hood, no power lumbar, a cheap looking interior, and mostly an underpowered engine that revs way to high trying to pull all the weight of these cars around. It's a real shame seeing how much improved the Mustang is, and then you see how they screwed up with the 500/Montego.
Dec 02, 2004 (1:54 pm)
Different strokes for different folks. I OWN a Ford Five Hundred SEL. I couldn't care less about struts under the hood. The Volvo safety equipment on these cars alone, along with the Haldex AWD is far more important to me than any perceived difference in the interiors.
But, by all means, if you like the 300C so much, go buy one! And enjoy!
Just don't think everyone else is giving more on their cars. Decontenting is widespread, at Daimler and GM, and the so-called foreign makes as well...
#1928 of 3623 Re: I'm back early, 500 & 300, investing vs spending [fsmmcsi]
Dec 02, 2004 (2:23 pm)
“Back in 2000, when I ordered my 2000 Sable and found out that there was no four wheel disc brakes, no power passenger seat, no power lumbar, and no power antenna, to name a few things.”
When I was shopping for Sable in 2001 there was a power passenger seat. Lumbar support is not very useful in Sable anyway. Seats are not very comfortable and have no lateral support. I can understand though about disc wheel brakes, I mean I also do not understand why Ford does not offer it Sable with Duratec. Why do you need power antenna?
Otherwise there are lot features in my Sable I like, e.g. dimming mirror/compass, double visors (very useful indeed), entrance lights beneath windows and esp keypad entry.
#1929 of 3623 Car and Driver
Dec 02, 2004 (5:40 pm)
Car and Driver tested the Freestyle in the January 2005 issue.... and achieved a respectable 8.2 seconds to 60 in the brake-torque technique, and a decent 8.7 seconds to 60 in the Street Start, a better indicator of real world acceleration. Passing times of 4.3 and 5.9 from 30-50 and 50-70 are both good as well.
With test data on the Five Hundred from AMCI, MT, Edmunds.com, and on the Freestyle from Car and Driver.... it seems that the transmission is key.
The CVT is excellent, and the 6 speed isnt so much.
Overall, a good job... the Freestyle with the CVT definitely posted MUCH stronger times than I expected. Curious that the 8.7 street start is faster than the Edmunds.com similar test of the the Five Hundred (8.9 seconds). Then again, the Freestyle benefits from the CVT, and the Five Hundred was saddled to the 6 speed.
#1930 of 3623 ANT 14 - Does the 500 have Lumbar? Narrow footwells
Dec 02, 2004 (10:31 pm)
I am confused. Does the 500 have lumbar support for driver and passenger or not. What models have it and is it powered or manual? I haven't driven it yet but am looking to simplify and get away from the high Jag S maintenance/replacement costs. Are the footwells really that big a deal or is it similar to the Jag S type? I am 6'1".
Dec 03, 2004 (2:00 am)
The footwells you will simply have to try for yourself and see. They ARE different, and they bother the fire out of some people and others not at all. At first I found the outboard intrusion mildly annoying, but now I don't even notice it. Your feet and legs may differ. Much depends on physique, expectations and attitude.
My SEL has a manual lumbar support for the driver only...
#1932 of 3623 Ford Five Hundred Opinions
Dec 03, 2004 (7:26 am)
It seems the consensus of opions is as follows:
Positives: High ride, large interior, safety(a la Volvo), CVT and available AWD(with proven volvo components)
Negatives: Bland styling, moderately powered engine as the only choice.
Personally I like the car. As a family car I think it would be a very solid choice. They may have considered offering a sport option first with a big engine and then have cheaper models available with the lesser engine, similar to how the 300 is packaged. If you can't afford the Hemi you have two additional choices. The styling is nice, it just looks bad when compared to the 300. What a tough act to follow.
Here is a review from autoMedia: http://www.automedia.com/autoReviews/2005/ford/500/rts20041101fh.- asp?affid=
#1933 of 3623 Re: ANT 14 - Does the 500 have Lumbar? Narrow footwells [jagsowner]
Dec 03, 2004 (7:34 am)
Driver's side manual lumbar adjustment is standard on all trim levels for the Freestyle, Five Hundred & Montego. Passenger side lumbar adjustment is only standard on the Limiteds and Montego Premier, it's available in some option packages on the SEL trim level.
Dec 03, 2004 (9:08 am)
If you currently have an S-type, the footwell will be almost similar in width, if not an inch or 2 wider, but instead of being deep as in the S-type, it's a tad less deep. I have an LS myself and I perceive it's footwell to be narrow because of the wide center console, but in reality it's deep and sufficient even with size 13 shoes.
Dec 03, 2004 (10:02 am)
Edmunds review states an average of 19 MPG for the five hundred in their test. Is Ford kidding? Underpowered and lousy milage. Are they trying to lure people away from the H2? How can Ford ignore the fact that Toyota and Honda make their minivans get nearly 30 MPG. Both of the vans are larger and offer more room. These are just a couple of examples of similar or larger vehicles that get much better milage than this all new sedan. I had expected great improvement over the previous generation Ford sedans with the CVT but the older cars get better milage than the five hundred. When is Ford going to get it?